“A couple of days ago, a friend brought up a matter regarding halal meat.
The question/issue was the animal has to be herbivorous to be Halal,
and an animal becomes Haram if it consumes blood and /or meat (mammal feed).
However, nowadays, it is quite common for farmers to feed their livestock
with animal protein and animal by-products, including animal food derived
from pigs and dead animals(bangkai). [Malay for the Arabic: mayta or jifa
= carcass]

So, I would be grateful to know the hukum with regard to this issue, esp.
from the Shafie school.

Jazakallah.”

Blood, pig derivatives, and carcass or derivatives from a meat of an animal
not slaughtered in accordance with our Shari'a are considered Najasa
[impurity]. However, any livestock [na'am] (sheep, cattle, goats and
camels), including chicken (and other poultry), fed with impurities, or
specifically for our question here, fed with impurities other than animal
excrements, does not make it Haram or prohibited for Muslims to eat. The
Qawl Asahh [the more correct position] in our school (made famously by Imam
al-Nawawi in Kitab al-At'ima of the Minhaj) is that it is only Makruh
Tanzih or merely disliked to eat such slaughtered meat, and more so, it can
only be Makruh Tanzih, if that meat is found to have an offensive smell, or
that the taste or the colour of that meat is different from usual. This
ruling (in that it is not Haram) is arrived at because one acts upon what
is the asl or the original state, which is based on the qa'ida or legal
principle of al-aslu baqa'u ma kana 'ala ma kana [the original state is to
maintain 'X' with 'X']. A classic example used by our jurists is: even if a
lamb were to be brought up with dog's or pig's milk, that lamb is still
considered Halal and is only regarded as a Jallala (which is also Halal but
Makruh) if it meets the condition of a Jallala such that if it 'smells'
(see below).

So, your statement that "the animal has to be herbivorous to be Halal, and
an animal becomes Haram if it consumes blood and /or meat" is nonsensical,
from a fiqhi point of view, because the original state of the slaughtered
meat [lahm al-madhakka] in question (such as beef), is nevertheless Halal,
tahir and pure, and furthermore, as one of our jurists aptly puts it, "it
cannot be made Haram just on account of its foul smell." [Zakariyya
al-Ansari, Asna al-Matalib, 3:412]. A 'herbivorous animal' is not a term
which we use to judge whether an animal is Halal for human consumption or
otherwise, since an elephant, considered a herbivore by biologists, is
considered Haram by our jurists for consumption; and likewise, a fox,
considered a carnivore, is Halal to eat. Even if we were to admit an
extreme example, such as, if that 'herbivorous animal' or let us say, a
slaughter-able Halal animal [ma'kul] like a sheep were to change its
attribute and become carnivorous, then that sheep would still be Halal when
slaughtered, because one judges by its original state (unless if the
metamorphosis is complete, such that the sheep changes into a lion,
essentially (dhati) and attribute-wise (sifati), then there is khilaf and
further discussion in our school). [Ibn Hajar, Tuhfa, 12:317].

In fiqh, the technical name for slaughter-able animals that eat impurities
are 'Jallala' [contaminated animals], because they eat 'Jalla'
[technically, contaminant or impurity, and literally, ba'ra (and 'adhira) -
the excrements or droppings and stools of animals (that are dry); but
according to Sayyid al-Bakri, this includes all the impurities, including
impurities other than ba'ra; I'anat al-Talibin, 2:400]. The Hukm for eating
a Jallala meat as alluded to at the beginning, is only Makruh Tanzih, not
Haram. So any slaughter-able animal that eats any impurities including
liquid intoxicants (which is considered a Najasa in our school), then, that
animal may be (but not necessarily) considered, a Jallala. This is
especially so, if the following circumstance [Hal] is met:

If it is discovered that most [akthar] of the animal's feed are impure. (By
'most', one judges according to what is customary for the farmer in
question, since what is 'most' for a city dweller who has never lived in a
farm might be 'little' for farmers; chickens which sometimes eat their own
droppings is a good case.)

However that is not the 'real' condition [shart] for it to be considered a
Jallala; instead the Mani' (the prevention; that is to say, the legal
reasoning ('Illa) for it being Makruh to eat a Jallala) is if the following
occurs:

That (whether dead or alive), there is a noticeable [zahir] change in the
smell, taste or colour of the meat/by-products or the sweat of an animal
from what is normally the case, such as the smell exuded is the smell of
that Najasa.

Once an animal is considered a Jallala, merely washing or cooking the
slaughtered meat will not remove the Makruhness of eating it (if either its
smell, taste or colour is affected in the first place - if not, then the
question of Makruh does not arise).

When one knows that an animal is contaminated, then it is Mustahabb
[recommended] that the animal be quarantined and fed with uncontaminated
feed in order that the animal in question 'recovers'. (This will prevent
the slaughtered meat from becoming Makruh to eat later on; and if it is not
to be slaughtered, then it is to remove the Hukm of Makruh of consuming any
by-products of the animal in question, such as its egg and milk, or to
remove the dislikedness of riding bare on it (even if it is not sweating)
or to use its skin.) There is a general guideline, set by our jurists,
giving the respective quarantine periods as follows: 40 days for camels,
30 days for cattle, 7 days for sheep and goats, and 3 days for chickens
[Ibn Hajar, Tuhfa, 12:322; note that the guideline is based upon the
authority of the Athar of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of
them!) which does not specify the period for cattle and this explains why
we find that some of our jurists (such as Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya
al-Ansari and al-Jamal) set the period of cattle with camels, namely 40
days, (following the qiyas [analogy] made by Ibn Jama'a) as opposed to 30
days (set by Ibn Hajar and al-Ramli, and followed later, among others, by
al-Qalyubi, al-Bujayrmi, and by the most recent authority, al-Jurdani in
his Fath al-'Allam)]. If the animal 'recovers' before the said period, then
it is sufficient, if not, one repeats the quarantine again until the Mani'
is lifted. If the animal were to 'recover' without going through this
process, then it is also sufficient, since the Mani' is lifted.

If,
according to what you say is true and verified by food scientists that,
"nowadays, it is quite common for farmers to feed their livestock with
animal protein and animal by-products, including animal food derived from
pigs", then, that 'protein feed' will be considered Najasa in our school,
because, the (I'm assuming small) amount of pig derivatives (or other
Najasa) mixed with the other non-Najasa material in that 'protein feed',
makes the whole thing an impurity. This is based on the rule that when one
knows that there is an impurity in a mixture but one does not know which
part of that mixture contains the impurity, then the whole mixture is
considered impure. [This is based on the general legal principle of idha
ijtama'a l-halalu wa-l-haramu ghuliba l-haramu [when the Halal and Haram
meet, the Haram prevails]. In fact, students of fiqh will come to realize
that this general qa'ida is used to explain why one of the 11 cases (i.e.,
the 6th case) is exempted from the normal use of one of the five legal
principles which our school is said to be built upon, namely, al-yaqinu la
yuzalu bi l-shakk [certainty is not removed by doubt], such as, when some
impurity comes into contact with someone's clothing or body, and that
person does not know its location, then it would be Wajib to wash
everything; cf. al-Suyuti, Ashbah, 1:152.] The fiqhi implication here is
that to feed an animal with anything impure in itself [Najasa 'Ayn, but not
Mutanajjis] is Makruh, and not Haram [if Mutanajjis, then it is not at all
Makruh] (this is a famous Fatwa by Ibn al-Sabbagh, the first Imam to teach
at the Nizamiyya of Baghdad). [al-Nawawi, Rawda, 3:10].

However, as we now know, that unless there is a noticeable change in the
state (of one of the three qualities) in the animal or meat in question,
then that animal cannot be considered a Jallala, and hence it will not be
Makruh to eat the meat of that animal in question; if there is a change,
then it will only be Makruh to eat such meat, and not Haram. (By my
reckoning, it will most probably be unlikely that such an animal will
exhibit a noticeable change in their state by eating 'protein feed' - a
food engineered or designed by presumably, food scientists, either for the
convenience of mass producing animal food or for the supposed benefit of
livestock and poultry animals.)

Nevertheless, the fiqhi ruling is easy; the difficulty is in applying its
'adab'. If the animal were to be considered a Jallala, to avoid eating the
meat out of ta'a [obedience to Allah] will be rewarded by Allah, even
though eating it is permitted by the school and that person is not sinning.
(It is as if, when one is able, to follow a stricter ruling ['azima] such
as following the Hanbalis who say that to eat a Jallala meat is Haram, even
when the easier ruling [rukhsa] is allowed in our school.) To leave the
Makruh is considered Wara' [scrupulousness, but out of piety]. Likewise, as
is more likely in our case, when the meat is not considered a Jallala, but
if we were to have knowledge that the animal in question was fed by
objectionable means (such as feeding them with impurities) or by unlawful
means (such as feeding them with stolen money), then it would also be out
of Wara' to avoid eating such meat, even though eating it is not Haram.
That is why, it is best, when one is able, to obtain a meat that one knows
where it comes from, that it comes from a farm that does not feed the
animal in question with impurities or other objectionable means, whether
the farm is a so-called 'organic farm' or otherwise. By doing that, we have
at least tried to prevent some harm coming our way. (Coincidentally, one of
the definitions of Wara' (the Wara' of the Salihin, the Righteous) is, "to
refrain from something that is not harmful, as a precaution against getting
[harm] in that which is not harmful"; cf. Nawawi al-Jawi, Salalim
al-Fudala', 11.)

Al-Khatib al-Shirbini, in the Mughni, after discussing the case of feeding
an animal by objectionable means (such as a lamb raised and fed with dog's
or pig's milk) and by unlawful means (such as feeding a sheep for around 10
years by unlawfully acquired money), eloquently quotes Imam al-Ghazali as
giving this advice:

"To refrain eating from a sheep that is fed by illegal means [maghsub] is
from among the Wara', even when it is not Haram to leave the Wara'."
[al-Shirbini, Mughni, 6;156].

Even better, let us look at the source that al-Shirbini used, namely,
al-Ghazali's Ihya':

"The highest degree [of Ma'siya [disobedience] connected to a reason that
is Halal in matters of Shubha or doubtful lawfulness], which is severely
Makruh concerning it [note: this is because al-Ghazali holds the stricter
position in our school, namely to eat a Jallala meat is Makruh Tahrim], is:
that which its trace remains in the thing obtained [mutanawal], such as, to
eat from a sheep that is fed by illegal means or grazed in an unlawful
grazing land. For that is disobedience, whereas (its feed) becomes a reason
for its survival. It may be that what remains from its blood, its meat and
its parts is from that feed. This Wara' is important, even though it is not
Wajib." [Ihya', 2:125].

This advice is sufficient for those who understand.

I end with the following rajaz and may it be accepted among the Ahsan
al-Qa'il concerning Jallala:

idhA akkalta d-dawAjina n-najAsah
fa-hya llatI tusamma bi-l-jallAlah

wa-Hukmu aklihA laysa muHarramah
wa-lakini l-aSaHHu hiya makrUhah

idhA 'allafta d-dawAjina najisan
in fa'alta dhalika takun 'ASiyyan

wa-in tatruk jallAlatan rA'ihatan
ta'mal dhalika kunta mutawarri'an

[If you were to eat contaminated poultry; which is then known as the Jallala,
while the ruling about eating it, is not Haram; but the More Correct
Opinion, is Makruh.
If you were to feed poultry with filth; then by doing that, you are
disobeying,
while if you refrained from the smelling Jallala; then by doing that, you
are being pious.]

May this be of benefit and only Allah and His Messenger know the best ruling.